Is the Atlantic hurricane season getting longer?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 6:34 PM GMT on December 16, 2008

Share this Blog
3
+

It seems like there have been an unusual number of early and late season tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic in recent years. In 2008, we had four named storms in July, and the second most powerful November hurricane on record. Both 2007 and 2005 had rare December storms, and 2003 featured Tropical Storm Anna, the first April tropical storm ever recorded. This year, Hurricane Tomas made 2010 the fourth straight year with a November hurricane, something that has never occurred in the Atlantic since accurate records began in 1851. Is hurricane season getting longer? Dr. Jim Kossin of the University of Wisconsin published a 2008 paper in Geophysical Research Letters, "Is the North Atlantic hurricane season getting longer?" He concluded that yes, there is a "apparent tendency toward more common early- and late-season storms that correlates with warming Sea Surface Temperature but the uncertainty in these relationships is high".


Figure 1. Observed sea surface temperature (SST) trends during the official North Atlantic hurricane season (June-November) for the period 1950-2007. Units are °C per century. The dashed rectangle denotes the tropical storm formation region south of 30° North latitude and east of 75° West longitude. Data are from the NOAA Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature V3 product [Smith et al., 2008]. Image credit: Kossin, J., 2008, "Is the North Atlantic hurricane season getting longer?", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L23705, doi:10.1029/2008GL036012, 2008.

Methods
Dr. Kossin utilized the "best track" database of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity going back to 1851. However, since lack of satellite and aircraft reconnaissance data before 1950 makes the early part of this record suspect, he limited his analysis to the period from 1950 onward. The era of best data--the satellite era beginning in 1980--was also looked at separately, to ensure the highest possible data quality. The area studied was only a portion of the Atlantic--the tropical storm formation region south of 30° North latitude and east of 75° West longitude. This region has shown considerable warming of the Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) since 1950, in excess of 1°F (0.6°C) (Figure 1). A statistical method called "quantile regression" was employed. The method looked at how certain thresholds that mark the beginning and end of hurricane season have changed over the years. For example, the date where 5% of all tropical storms form earlier than that date, was called the 0.05 quantile, and the date where 5% of all tropical storms form later than that date, was called the 0.95 quantile. Kossin was able to show that the date of the 0.05 quantile got steadily earlier and the date of the 0.95 quantile steadily got later since 1950. Hurricane season for both the period 1950-present and 1980-present got longer by 5 to 10 days per decade.


Figure 2. Trends in tropical storm formation dates, in the region south of 30° North latitude and east of 75° West longitude, at the 0.05.0.95 quantiles. Trends are based on the periods (left) 1950-2007, and (right) 1980-2007. The dates (month/year) associated with the 0.05, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 0.95 quantiles for each period are shown on the top axis (these threshold dates are based on the full sample for each period). Shading denotes the 90% confidence interval. Image credit: Kossin, J., 2008, "Is the North Atlantic hurricane season getting longer?", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L23705, doi:10.1029/2008GL036012, 2008.

Relationship with Sea Surface Temperature
The broadening of the Atlantic hurricane season found was strongly dependent upon Sea Surface Temperatures. Both the onset and end of hurricane season shifted by 20 days per degree C of warming of the SST. With global warming projected to increase tropical Atlantic SSTs 1-2°C by the end of the century, can we then expect a 40-80 day increase in the length of hurricane season? Dr. Kossin doesn't explore this possibility, and doesn't blame the observed increase in the length of the season on human-caused global warming of the oceans. There is reason to believe that future warming of the Atlantic SSTs won't necessarily broaden the area over which tropical storms will form, though. Papers by Henderson-Sellers et al. (1998) and Knutson et al. (2008) theorize that as SSTs warm, the lowest temperature at which tropical storms can form will also increase. The current minimum temperature of 26.5°C (80°F) may increase to 28.5°C for a 2°C warming of Atlantic SSTs. Johnson and Xie (2010) have found observational evidence that the lowest temperature at which tropical storms can form has indeed been increasing at about 0.1°C per decade in the Atlantic, in line with climate model predictions.

References
Henderson-Sellers, A., et al., 1998, "Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: A Post-IPCC Assessment", Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 19–38.

Johnson, N.C., and S.P. Xie, 2010, "Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection", Nature Geoscience doi:10.1038/ngeo1008

Knutson, T.R., J.J. Sirutis, S.T. Garner, G.A. Vecchi, and I.M. Held, 2008, Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions", Nature Geoscience 1, 359 - 364 (2008), doi:10.1038/ngeo202

Kossin, J., 2008, "Is the North Atlantic hurricane season getting longer?", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L23705, doi:10.1029/2008GL036012, 2008.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 57 - 7

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
Yo pot.
Those grandsons will always remember tonight.
Never miss the opportinity amigo.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is more on GW!


The Day After (Inauguration)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, December 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: The Associated Press warns that the new administration won't have much time to save the planet from a global warming apocalypse. Never mind that the "ticking time bomb" is a dud.

The temperature at Denver International Airport dropped to 18 below zero on Sunday, breaking the previous record of 14 below set in 1901. White Sulphur Springs, Mont., reported 29 below to the National Weather Service, breaking the record of 17 below set in 1922. Meanwhile, ice storms ravage the Northeast and the upper Midwest.

This is not a local phenomenon. Hong Kong had the second-longest cold spell since 1885. Cold in northern Vietnam destroyed 40% of the rice crop and killed 33,000 head of livestock. The British Parliament debated climate change as London experienced the first October snow since 1934.

Presumably this has all been reported by the Associated Press. But according to a weekend AP report, this is all an illusion and "2008 is on a pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line." Rather than being "evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming." Oh.

The report, which includes no comments from any skeptic, says global warming "is a ticking time-bomb that President-elect Obama can't avoid." It warns "warming is accelerating. Time is running out, and Obama knows it." Especially if he relies on AP wire reports.

Problem is, nature didn't get the memo. Geophysicist David Deming found that for the first time since the 18th century, in the days before SUVs, Alaskan glaciers grew this year instead of retreating. Fairbanks had its fourth coldest October in 104 years of records.

U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia reported: "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July." It was the worst summer he'd seen in two decades.

As the Anchorage Daily News reports, "Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Ice Field witnessed the kind if snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too."

The consequence of melting glaciers and sea ice is supposed to be rising sea levels. The poster children for this phenomenon are low-lying coral islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu. Again, the facts are ignored in the quest for headlines.

The satellite record shows the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993, when the $100 million international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began.

As in other places around the world, sea-level changes have many natural explanations, including geologic changes in the land.

The atolls of Tuvalu rest on sinking volcanic rock on top of which new coral grows to replace the coral die-off that occurs as the volcanic rock sinks deeper into the ocean where coral does not survive. Sand is excavated for building material on Tuvalu. Excavation for building material has eroded the beach, thus giving to the casual, or biased, observer the impression of rising sea levels.

The strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot.

Patrick Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C., notes that Tuvalu is near the epicenter of a region where the sea level has been declining for nearly 50 years. He has written that the decline has been so steep that, even accepting the U.N.'s median estimates of global warming over the next hundred years, Tuvalu would not return to its 1950 sea level until 2050, much less disappear under the sea.

None of this, of course, matters to the warming zealots and some major media outlets. If it's too dry or too wet, too hot or too cold, everything is caused by global warming. We believe, as do many reputable scientists, that the warming and cooling of the earth is a natural phenomenon dictated by forces beyond our control, from ocean currents to solar activity. We needn't worry about one day mooring our boats to the Washington Monument.
Member Since: July 27, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2868
xmas high temp. for west palm went down to 68....low friday morning after 53...do the models show a somewhat major front moving through that time period?
Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10578
Mauritius Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Warning Number FIVE
DEPRESSION TROPICALE 04-20082009
4:00 AM Reunion December 17 2008
======================================

At 0:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression (999 hPa) located at 10.8S 66.9E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gust of 45 knots. The depression is reported as moving southwest at 7 knots.

Squally weather exist within 90 NM radius from the center extending up to 200 NM in the eastern semi-circle within a convergence line between 5S to 12S from 71E to 84E.

Near Gale-force winds 20 NM from the center

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5

Forecast and Intensity
=========================
24 HRS: 12.7S 65.4E - 35 knots (Tempete Tropicale Modere%uFFFD
48 HRS: 13.7S 63.2E - 25 knots (PERTURBATION TROPICALE)
72 HRS: 14.4S 61.1E - 25 knots (PERTURBATION TROPICALE)

Additional Information
======================
The deep convective cell existing since 1500z has probably allowed to intensify within the recent past 6 hours. TRMM 2001z swath confirms an existing low level circulation center under the main cluster (CF 37H), this system evolves within a neutral environment: Wind shear is weak, divergence is good poleward but weak equatorward, low level inflow is established poleward but remains weak equatorward. System is expected to keep on tracking southwest within the next 12 hours then recurve west-southwest on the northern edge of the subtropical high pressures.

A WINDOW EXIST FOR SOME INTENSIFICATION WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS BEFORE NORTHERLY SHEAR BECOMES A LITLLE BIT STRONGER ON THE FRONT OF AN UPPER LEVEL TROUGH ON THE WEST OF THE SYSTEM. SYSTEM COULD REACH THE MINIMAL TROPICAL STORM STAGE.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
I have seen Highs before but, wow...lol

Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 177 Comments: 20430
Quoting theshepherd:
I think you'll find that most global warming sites are incapable of original thoughts. There only claim to fame is posting more graphs and charts than the next guy and feeling good about themselves for doing so.
Of course, facts are facts. The Artic ice sheet has diminished,the oceans are rising and warmer and appear to be more acidic and global climate as a whole has shown an upward trend.If the earth is warming it also must be expanding.
However, you won't find any discussion as to how this weight redistribution/exspansion can effect plate migration rates and earthquake and volcanic activity increases.
Life as we know it could end tomorrow. No one can dispute that with scientific data. No one can dispute with scientific data that sun spots won't remain low for the next hundred years.
Yellowstone could well have been the next Toba had the hotspot not migrated east beneath heavier structure.
Your thoughts of volcanic activity will get swept under the rug as "ain't gonna happen" and your attention diverted elsewhere. LOL


The Earth may in fact be growing.
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nice to see some folks around - you are missing a great adventure story on Rob's blog - run away meerkats being chased by commando squirrels.

Also - check out the santa's on my blog - and add your own - should be a nice collection by Christmas Eve!

Pssst - heard a rumor that Orca is being dropped back into the snow tomorrow - bet he won't be happy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
anything going to happen with that atlantic low?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Link

Just short term, but none the less interesting.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hello all.
Good discussion on the GW thing earlier.
Good points, no crap. Nice.

Lovely evening here, was sitting outside looking at the stars and counting satelites with grandsons. Saw 5. Then Mother came home and spoiled all the fun ! " Its time for bed".
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 23080
Just a thought.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting all4hurricanes:

they have active and inactive years in the cycle too they and what I've seen they tend to oppose each other so our active cycle means their inactive cycle. You need to look at more than 30 years for hurricane stats

Yes I know that...and the E Pacific and the Atlantic are very closely correlated. El Ninos in the Eastern Pacific --- active hurricane season and vice versa. This has been known for years. I would like to the see the cycle between the 1930s and the 1970s. I bet you would have seen a decline in sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic.
Member Since: January 30, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 746
Quoting AstroHurricane001:

Actually, no. GW is no longer expected to be a gradual or slow process. More recent data suggests it will be enforced by a series of "tipping points". We've reached some of them already. A report says that "15-37% of all plant and animal species will be 'commited to extinction' by 2050". I estimate, from that report, that about 50% of species will be extinct 100 years from now. By comparison, the Cretateous-Tertiary mass extinction, the one that killed the dinosaurs, saw about 60% of species going extinct, and in a timescale of about 100,000 years. This, in about a century, will surely qualify as a mass extinction, no?
It was an asteroid that was responsible for the dino extinction. Personally,I think they may well have died of old age in addition to a dwindling food supply. With cooler temps it's quite common even now for only one sex to hatch. If there is only one sex, then the species dies with the oldest remaining. We'll never know.
When I was born there were 2 billion people on this planet and now there are 6.6 billion. Can we again tripple that to almost 20 billion by 2050? How do we get a handle on this when it is mostly the underdeveloped countries that are responsible for the majority? Loss of habitat and chemical pollutants will score a heavier blow than GW by far. Definetly stressed and weakened for any GW affect to accelerate. Your 50% guess is as good as any,especially where amphibians are involved.
Bottom line, my friend, society ain't gonna do nothing to change until the price of oil forces them to. It won't be from their love of Mother Terra, it will be their love of the dollar.
And then ....there's this place called China. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AstroHurricane001:

Actually, no. GW is no longer expected to be a gradual or slow process. More recent data suggests it will be enforced by a series of "tipping points". We've reached some of them already. A report says that "15-37% of all plant and animal species will be 'commited to extinction' by 2050". I estimate, from that report, that about 50% of species will be extinct 100 years from now. By comparison, the Cretateous-Tertiary mass extinction, the one that killed the dinosaurs, saw about 60% of species going extinct, and in a timescale of about 100,000 years. This, in about a century, will surely qualify as a mass extinction, no?

Sorry I was being selfish and was only thinking you all meant human mass extinction but that does technically count as mass extinction, still I think people have been contributing to some sort of mass extinction long before GW
Member Since: March 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2338
Quoting BahaHurican:
What I do hope President Obama will bring to the adminstration's approach to GW is a fresh sense of exploring all possibilities, including that man may NOT be causing the GW, with a view to mitigating against them. If we have species whose habitats are likely to change radically over the next 50 years, do we know which species they are? Do we have a way of preserving either them or their habitat? Do we need to start now moving NY and NOLA further onshore before they become little more than tourist towns? Or should we be more concerned about intensified desertification on the interiors of our continents?

Maybe we'll get a good start to looking at and answering these questions and others like them, instead of squabbling about the facts that are out there.

The questions about melting and methane release and shifting pressures seem to be ones that may be worth considering. Consider that the 2004 tsunami happened in a zone that the average person didn't realize WAS an earthquake zone. Do we know everything we need to know? Hurricane science is proving otherwise.


Read my eight-paragraph comment on LiveScience.com, "Thousands Negotiate New Climate Treaty". I'm AstroHurricane001 on there as well and I have the same display pic. There's also another article, which I also commented on, that lists 10 animal species "you can kiss goodbye".
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2834
What I do hope President Obama will bring to the adminstration's approach to GW is a fresh sense of exploring all possibilities, including that man may NOT be causing the GW, with a view to mitigating against them. If we have species whose habitats are likely to change radically over the next 50 years, do we know which species they are? Do we have a way of preserving either them or their habitat? Do we need to start now moving NY and NOLA further onshore before they become little more than tourist towns? Or should we be more concerned about intensified desertification on the interiors of our continents?

Maybe we'll get a good start to looking at and answering these questions and others like them, instead of squabbling about the facts that are out there.

The questions about melting and methane release and shifting pressures seem to be ones that may be worth considering. Consider that the 2004 tsunami happened in a zone that the average person didn't realize WAS an earthquake zone. Do we know everything we need to know? Hurricane science is proving otherwise.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 20688
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
This from FOX NEWS


Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."

They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.

BR>









YOu know, part of my problem with the so-called "anti-MMGW crowd is that they are constantly clamouring about the "bad science" of their foes, but never seem to have much "good science" to counteract it. Comments such as the ones above, or calling another scientist and his work "silly" make the speaker look and sound like disgruntled bloggers. That's not commentary I can respect. Then to tell me that hurricane incidence is at a 24 year low when world wide things are pretty much the same as they have been since the start of the lastest active period is a way to make me doubt your analysis of the GW data. While I agree there is too much at stake to move foreward without further intensive study of world systems, I have to admit my agreement is not coming about because of what THESE scientists seem to be saying. Frankly I've seen more erudite and scientifically based commentary on both sides of the argument here in our very own blog . . ..
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 20688
Quoting all4hurricanes:

I wouldn't say mass extinction in our life time I think GW is to slow for that but sometime later if we don't stop it. There are a lot of doomsday scenarios and anyone of which could occur but in the past 100 years the Worst case scenario never really happened except possibly 2004 Tsunami and Nargis. And your right about us not knowing the effect of GW on hurricanes one of my friends who was foolish enough to bring up the topic of weather to me said that GW would definitely cause an increase in hurricanes although the opposite could occur.

Actually, no. GW is no longer expected to be a gradual or slow process. More recent data suggests it will be enforced by a series of "tipping points". We've reached some of them already. A report says that "15-37% of all plant and animal species will be 'commited to extinction' by 2050". I estimate, from that report, that about 50% of species will be extinct 100 years from now. By comparison, the Cretateous-Tertiary mass extinction, the one that killed the dinosaurs, saw about 60% of species going extinct, and in a timescale of about 100,000 years. This, in about a century, will surely qualify as a mass extinction, no?
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2834
Re: PensacolaDoug:

Nobody is attributing sea level rise to the melt of the Arctic Ocean. It's the land-based ice caps like Greenland and Antarctica that contribute to sea level rise, as well as other factors such as thermal expansion and glacial melt. Most people who try to debunk AGW use, to some degree, points that are at least partially moot.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2834
Quoting AstroHurricane001:

It appears that large holes are now appearing in Earth's magnetic field. See the articles on space.com and livescience.com. There has been one study suggesting a link between global warming and earthquakes, but it's only a hypothesis right now. There are many future events that could threaten Earth's civilization locally and globally. GW is the most imminent one. Every year finds new data pointing closer to the cunclusion that we've underestimated the effects of GW. Just this year, methane clathrate releases began to be observed by the AGU and now they're saying summer Arctic sea ice could be gone by 2013! This doesn't leave us much time to cope with GW. A major extinction event is due to occur in our lifetimes. Hurricanes will be affected, but since this is a very complex mechanism, there's still a lot we don't know.

I wouldn't say mass extinction in our life time I think GW is to slow for that but sometime later if we don't stop it. There are a lot of doomsday scenarios and anyone of which could occur but in the past 100 years the Worst case scenario never really happened except possibly 2004 Tsunami and Nargis. And your right about us not knowing the effect of GW on hurricanes one of my friends who was foolish enough to bring up the topic of weather to me said that GW would definitely cause an increase in hurricanes although the opposite could occur.
Member Since: March 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2338
Quoting all4hurricanes:

That happens too much an inevitable disaster is swept under the rug. Katrina was theorized before it hit, I remeber a show about it nicknaming Katrina "Pam" and nobody cared until it happened. Then a week after Katrina hit I saw a show about Hurricane X a major hurricane that hit New York.

It appears that large holes are now appearing in Earth's magnetic field. See the articles on space.com and livescience.com. There has been one study suggesting a link between global warming and earthquakes, but it's only a hypothesis right now. There are many future events that could threaten Earth's civilization locally and globally. GW is the most imminent one. Every year finds new data pointing closer to the cunclusion that we've underestimated the effects of GW. Just this year, methane clathrate releases began to be observed by the AGU and now they're saying summer Arctic sea ice could be gone by 2013! This doesn't leave us much time to cope with GW. A major extinction event is due to occur in our lifetimes. Hurricanes will be affected, but since this is a very complex mechanism, there's still a lot we don't know.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2834
This from FOX NEWS


Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."

They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.

"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.

In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid," and that "global warming is accelerating."

Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein's characterization of a problem he says doesn't exist.

"He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it's accelerating, and whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence," Deming told FOXNews.com.

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.

"Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,"Deming said. "What he's doing here is he's writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that's not right. It's not reporting. It's propaganda.

"This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It's not fair and balanced."

A spokesman for the Associated Press said that the news agency stands by its story. "It%u2019s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others," spokesman Paul Colford told FOXNews.com in an e-mail.

Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story's approach to the issue.

"There's very little that's right about it," Fox said. "And it's really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.

"One guy like him can be very destructive and alarming. Yeah it's freedom of speech, but its dishonest."

Like Deming, Fox said global warming is not accelerating. "These kinds of temperatures cycle up and down and have been doing so for millions of years," he said.

He said there is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. "It's silly to lay it all on man-made carbon dioxide," Fox said. "It was El Nino in 1998 that caused the big spike in global warming and little to do with carbon dioxide."

Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes, he said.

James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.

"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world," O'Brien said. "But everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming."

He took issue with the AP article's assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.

"When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.

"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."

He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people."

O'Brien said he doesn't discount the potential effects man is having on the environment, but he cautioned that government should not make hasty decisions.

"There is no question that the Obama administration is green and I'm green, and there's no question that they're going to really take a careful look at what we need to do and attack problems, and I applaud that," O'Brien said.

"But I'm really concerned that they're going to spend all the money on implementation of mitigation, rather than supporting the science."










Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see a lot of hoopla around about NASA's newest oceanography satellite, Jason-2 and I see waves and winds reported as near realtime products from the altimeter on board.

Can anyone explain how it is that an altimeter is going to give us anything more than sea surface height? (as in wind on a scale capable of seeing TC vorticies, not the inferred prevailing wind on a scale of weeks...to influence SSH) Or maybe that scale of wind is what they are talking about for climate study applications...but then why near realtime?

Not that sea surface height isn't important, but I do not think this is an adequate replacement for QuikScat, nor even much of a supplement to it.

This is not a scatterometer.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
I think you'll find that most global warming sites are incapable of original thoughts. There only claim to fame is posting more graphs and charts than the next guy and feeling good about themselves for doing so.
Of course, facts are facts. The Artic ice sheet has diminished,the oceans are rising and warmer and appear to be more acidic and global climate as a whole has shown an upward trend.If the earth is warming it also must be expanding.
However, you won't find any discussion as to how this weight redistribution/exspansion can effect plate migration rates and earthquake and volcanic activity increases.
Life as we know it could end tomorrow. No one can dispute that with scientific data. No one can dispute with scientific data that sun spots won't remain low for the next hundred years.
Yellowstone could well have been the next Toba had the hotspot not migrated east beneath heavier structure.
Your thoughts of volcanic activity will get swept under the rug as "ain't gonna happen" and your attention diverted elsewhere. LOL

That happens too much an inevitable disaster is swept under the rug. Katrina was theorized before it hit, I remeber a show about it nicknaming Katrina "Pam" and nobody cared until it happened. Then a week after Katrina hit I saw a show about Hurricane X a major hurricane that hit New York.
Member Since: March 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2338
Quoting txag91met:
Why didn't anyone write a paper on the Eastern Pacific? The number of hurricanes there have been on the the decline since the 1980s...


they have active and inactive years in the cycle too they and what I've seen they tend to oppose each other so our active cycle means their inactive cycle. You need to look at more than 30 years for hurricane stats
Member Since: March 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2338
Quoting HurrikanEB:



link please.

Link. I put the numbers into two different wind calculators, then weighted the calculations accordingly. This is a much saner method than was used last time, when my method produced wind gust calculations about 60 km/h stronger than what actually occured. However, looking at today's calculations based on four different computer models and the official TWN forecast, I still get a crazy calculations of winds of 120 km/h (75 mph) around 2:30 am, Monday, for my location! Of course, it's a long way off, but that's just scary! Of course, the calculation may again prove to be incorrect, but again this is a much more conservative calculation method. The last time I calculated, the method showed the highest gusts in my data set to be 215 km/h, and it yielded a calculation of 135 km/h. This time, the highest number in the data was 330 km/h gust. Now, that's impossible. Still, the highest gust I've ever seen was about 105 km/h. We're also supposed to see over 30 cm (1 ft) of snow within the next week. This is going to be...interesting.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2834
Quoting Hurricane4Lex:
I've got a sort of related question to GW:

Volcanoes are part of the earth's atmospheric system right?(they spew alot of ash in the air)

So is there a possibility that the earth could "balance" itself by this method?(the earth cools when the ash is in the air?)

Just wanted to throw this question into the mix

It would be interesting to see a blog that proves or disproves any way mother nature can "balance" herself

I mean don't get me wrong and say that I said there's no reason to worry (too little or too much)

There could be a reason to worry since this hypothetical "balancing" could take some time to happen ("balancing" could happen sooner if we change way we live)

I'd just like to see anything that proves or disproves anything about climate "balance" (ie. the time it would take if we stayed "the same" vs. a change, methods of global cooling, cooling and warming of each year/decade( or an appropriate time frame) so that we can see a net outcome to decide if we are warming or cooling, etc)
I think you'll find that most global warming sites are incapable of original thoughts. There only claim to fame is posting more graphs and charts than the next guy and feeling good about themselves for doing so.
Of course, facts are facts. The Artic ice sheet has diminished,the oceans are rising and warmer and appear to be more acidic and global climate as a whole has shown an upward trend.If the earth is warming it also must be expanding.
However, you won't find any discussion as to how this weight redistribution/exspansion can effect plate migration rates and earthquake and volcanic activity increases.
Life as we know it could end tomorrow. No one can dispute that with scientific data. No one can dispute with scientific data that sun spots won't remain low for the next hundred years.
Yellowstone could well have been the next Toba had the hotspot not migrated east beneath heavier structure.
Your thoughts of volcanic activity will get swept under the rug as "ain't gonna happen" and your attention diverted elsewhere. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why didn't anyone write a paper on the Eastern Pacific? The number of hurricanes there have been on the the decline since the 1980s...

Member Since: January 30, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 746
Quoting newt3d:
This study is interesting ... because in the early and late season, SSTs usually aren't the limiting factor for cyclones to form.

Storms need an initial vorticity, low shear, moist air, and sufficient SST/convective potential to thrive ... and generally it's the dry air or shear that disrupts the formation around the season's edges, not the SSTs.

That said, higher SSTs provide more area of ocean that can sustain development. This implies that the favorable conditions for cyclogenesis will occur more often. (Assuming no change in the probability of suitable shear, humidity, vorticity.)

I'm still convinced that the way storms are named has changed over time, and greatly skewed the results of this study. Would Epsilon of 2005 have been named 20 years ago? Quite a few of these early / late season storms have been iffy in my book ... and I really don't know if there is a way to identify or remove bias on this area based on the data we have.


Very good points...all of them.

You should look up a talk Chris Landsea gave at the AMS 2008 annual meeting concerning storms of the past that were not named, but would be if they happened now (looking for link...). Telling, indeed.

He interviewed all of the NHC directors for some number of years back and gave them a scenario.

All of them from further back than 10 years or so said they would not have named the system with the given parameters. That system was an actual named TS from 2005 (I think).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wierd that the GOM is showing a slight cooling trend...
Member Since: January 30, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 746
Quoting P451:
With a blog like this, again, I question the data pool. The data we collect today versus the data we collected 50 years ago does not compare.

We have no acceptable data pool to draw conclusions from because until the past 10-12 years - we were in the dark.

Now we see all and we compare our all-seeing-eyes to ages when we couldn't see a damn thing.

Then we try to draw conclusions from it?

No sale.

I don't want to hear that 2008 was a more active hurricane season than 1904 (I pulled the year out of my you know what). Why? Heh... where were the advanced satellites in 1904? How many storms formed in 1904? Where did they go? How do they compare to 2008?

You CANNOT use data going back beyond 1995 and attempt to compare it to today's data because the satellites did not exist and the automated weather stations we have today not only did not exist but they did not exist en masse as they do today.

It's unfortunate but it is reality that you cannot create a factual representation about the weather because we have only stepped into the future - about 10 years ago - in regards to the data fields.

If you try to step beyond about 12 years into the past to confirm a theory on weather you'll always fail.

Perhaps in another 20 or 30 years we will finally have a 30 or 40 year record of weather that WE CAN TRUST and then derive conclusions from.

Not now...don't even try.


I agree 100% with you on that. Thats the truth but lots of people ignore that because people only hear what they want to.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AstroHurricane001:
Woah!! Look at what CMC and UKM do to S. Ontario around 132-138h!



link please.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
23. DDR
Good evening all.
Quick question,are the models still showing a possible subtropical storm?BTW its a lovely evening here in Trinidad,this tropical paridise,but some showers expected later....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Joint Typhoon Warning Center
WTXS21 Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert
21:30 PM UTC December 16 2008
======================================

An area of convection (96S/04R) located at 10.2S 67.6E or 335 NM west-southwest of Diego Garcia. Recent infrared satellite imagery depicts increased deep convection over the low level circulation center. A 1735z AMSU-B Microwave image also shows the increased organization of this system. The system is in an area of low vertical wind shear with favorable diffluence to the poleward side of the low level circulation center. Sea surface temperatures in the region is warm.

Maximum sustianed winds near the center is 27-32 knots with a minimum sea level pressure of 1002 MB. The potential for this disturbance to form into a significant tropical cyclone within the next 24 hours is UPGRADED TO GOOD.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
Woah!! Look at what CMC and UKM do to S. Ontario around 132-138h!
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2834
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Naw leave the Atlantic season alone. Most storms still happen in Aug-Sept-Oct anyway, and the other months have some activity but generally not too much (July 2005 nonwithstanding) When a major hurricane makes landfall in the USA outside the normal Atlantic hurricane season I'll take notice.
The US isnt the only place that matters...
Anyway, Hurricane Able was a Cat. 3 in the middle of may and came really close to the NC coast as a Cat. 3. does that count?
Member Since: October 15, 2008 Posts: 11 Comments: 2305
Quoting CybrTeddy:
It should be extended to May through December.


Or at least, extend it to May 15 and Dec. 15. I think they should shorten the EPac season to May 15 to Nov 15... nothing ever happens in the second half of November
Member Since: October 15, 2008 Posts: 11 Comments: 2305
13. CybrTeddy 8:31 PM GMT on December 16, 2008

It should be extended to May through December.



Well they unofficially change it to a cyclone could form at anytime. NHC no longer says on their page that the season is "over".

Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
Has there been any change in the number of atmospheric disturbances in the period in which they could be detected? Is there any correlation with the Atlantic Oscillation and / or ENSO (El Nino/ la Nina Southern Oscillation)? The latter is associated with tornado frequency with the la Nina portion of the cycle strongly associated with major tornado outbreaks.

Has there been a change in the number of hurricanes forming over relatively cooler waters? I don't have time to look up past hurricanes right now, but I remember there was one last year or the year before that became a hurricane after moving into waters with SST's where hurricanes would be expected to weaken.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:



out of season
area of interest west atlantic
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It should be extended to May through December.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Perturbation Tropicale 04/96S.INVEST

30kts 1000 MB - Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert is likely soon
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
I've got a sort of related question to GW:

Volcanoes are part of the earth's atmospheric system right?(they spew alot of ash in the air)

So is there a possibility that the earth could "balance" itself by this method?(the earth cools when the ash is in the air?)

Just wanted to throw this question into the mix

It would be interesting to see a blog that proves or disproves any way mother nature can "balance" herself

I mean don't get me wrong and say that I said there's no reason to worry (too little or too much)

There could be a reason to worry since this hypothetical "balancing" could take some time to happen ("balancing" could happen sooner if we change way we live)

I'd just like to see anything that proves or disproves anything about climate "balance" (ie. the time it would take if we stayed "the same" vs. a change, methods of global cooling, cooling and warming of each year/decade( or an appropriate time frame) so that we can see a net outcome to decide if we are warming or cooling, etc)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It sure started early this year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
That's been a question that I've been pondering over the past half-decade and I'm excited that some real scientists have taken notice of this very peculiar trend. Thank you Dr. Masters for providing this information and such an interesting topic to discuss. When I do get some spare time, I will most likely read that paper.

This brings me to another thought. Over the years, many people have had interesting questions about weather that they saught answers to. Well, over the years, it has been my pleasure to answer any questions posed to me by those seeking simple or easy-to-understand answers. Well, coming this week on my site, I will be hosting a new feature. For those here that have any weather-related questions that you wish to get easy-to-understand answers for, just message me your questions and I will answer them in a weekly blog feature on my site called "Ask the CCHS Weather Center". For those wishing to access my site, here is the link.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
rsmc Mauritius is expecting Moderate Tropical Storm Cindy now.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
Mauritius Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Warning Number FOUR
PERTURBATION TROPICALE 04-20082009
22:00 PM Reunion December 16 2008
======================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Tropical Disturbance (1000 hPa) located at 10.1S 67.3E has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots with gust of 35 knots. The disturbance is reported as moving southwest at 5 knots.

Squally weather exist within 160 NM radius from the center extending up to 350 NM in the southern sector and up to 470 NM in the eastern sector (also within a convergence line between 5S to 10S from 75E to 83E).

Locally reaching Gale-force winds 250 NM from the center in the southern semi-circle

Dvorak Intensity: T2.0

Forecast and Intensity
=========================
24 HRS: 11.5S 65.8E - 35 knots (Tempete Tropicale Modereé)
48 HRS: 13.1S 64.1E - 35 knots (Tempete Tropicale Modereé)
72 HRS: 13.4S 62.3E - 25 knots (PERTURBATION TROPICALE)

Additional Information
======================

The position's tilt existiing between the 37ghz and 85ghz channels on TRMM 1010z swath seems not to be so obvious anymore (CF 1357z SSMI/F13 and 1448z SSMIS/F16), so does not been shown on METEO SAT7 Visible animation. Low level center has been in consequence located under the deep convection cell existing since 1500z. This system evolves within a neutral environment: weak wind shear, upper level divergence is good poleward but weak equatorward. low level inflow is established poleward but remains minimal equatorward although it has slightly improved today. Available NWP models analyze this low and tracks it southwest along the northwestern periphery of the subtropical high pressures.

A WINDOW EXIST FOR SOME INTENSIFICATION WITHIN THE NEXT 36 HOURS BEFORE NORTHWESTERLY SHEAR BECOMES A LITLLE BIT STRONGER. SYSTEM COULD REACH THE MINIMAL TROPICAL STORM STAGE.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653

Viewing: 57 - 7

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.